StieliAlpha

What SoW does is a little different. You do not actually „move units around“. You give them orders to do something. You can give orders to subordinate units, but it is far from certain, that they will be carried out. I found that great, but quite frustrating, too. The game simulates the complete chain of command. However, the player can only give orders to his subordinate units. Say, as Brigade General, you could give orders to your regiments, but would receive orders from the (AI) Division Commander or even Corps or Army Commander. As Army Commander, it works obviously the other way round. But you would probably only give orders to the Corps Commanders, perhaps to a Division every then and when. It‘s a RT game, so if you play a high level Commander and start to micro-manage, you‘ll be lost in a minute.

Yep, the Scourge of War ACW series is pretty good. I played 2nd Bull Run for a while. The detail of orders submission us great. When you issues an order, you can actually see the messenger riding off to the receiver. Whether the messenger arrived or the receiver follows the order, is a very different question. Another good thing: You can choose your place in huge battles, by selecting what rank you play. I liked it up Division Commander. In the higher ranks, it became too confusing for me. Initiative can be pretty frustrating, too. I remember one game, where I barely managed to stop a Confederate attack and re-arrange my lines. Just then, one of my Regiment Commanders decided it’s time to be a hero and stormed forward. The rest turned into a Desaster. I have the complete Napoleonic series, too. Bought for little money in a Matrix game sale. But I never really came into it. There, sophisticated Napoleonic tactics seem to be too much for the AI. I have seen some battles, where my battalions ended up standing perpendicular to each other, like a cross. Or a battalion would form line perpendicular to a wall.

What else shall they do, except catching a salmon or hunting a bear every then and when?

For those, who want to see it: Here is a video of the actual crash seconds: https://www.google.ch/amp/s/amp.blick.ch/news/schweiz/exklusiv-augenzeugin-filmt-crash-am-piz-segnas-hier-stuerzt-die-ju-52-ab-id15044750.html The Ju crashed vertically into the ground. Quite disturbing sight. For the German speakers: I wonder if you understand the commentary of the video.

Welcome to the Club! Your gaming history sounds surprisingly similar to my own. As for this comment: It works quite for me since 20 years now. Though, we never had a dog. Perhaps that’s the difference.

It was the same for me, until I played Upfront at a convention for the first time. Before, I could not get used to the thought, that e.g. terrain features suddenly pop up on the table. The key was to somehow narrate a story as you played. Now, that I think of it, actually quite similar to what @Bud Backer describes for QB’s

Gents I just stumbled over this: http://battlegroundsgames.com/portfolio/up-front-card-game/ Seems to be a PDF and browser playable version of the old “Upfront” card game. After initial resentments, I loved the game back then.

Despite all lessons, don’t forget: „Who plays with text book in hand, dies with text book in hand.“ Re Osprey: I don‘t know their „tactics“ books, but mostly Osprey books are too „general“ for my taste. Though I do have some, I used them mostly as „picture books“ and as templates for 54mm modelling, resp. painting.

Yes, Vassal does no rule checking, but it copies the board games hardware. As I understand, you can choose the board game that suits you and than design your own scenarios. Of course, in the limits of the original “hardware” and rules. E,g., when your base game has no provisions for Air Force, you can’t design the Air Force into your Vassal module. Another thing to be considered: Normally, game rules are designed to cover specific situation or aspect (or carry the designers view of the world). When you try to use them for something completely different, they probably won’t work.

By talking about platform, although you decided for Pz Corps already: Have a look at board games, but played with their Vassal Computer game Module for the operational layer. That should open interesting options for your project.

Me neither. I did not even know, that they had private computers.

I think, I mentioned that before: Conceptually, you are trying to reinvent the wheel. I really recommend to have a look at board games and table top rules, though this will keep you researching for 100 years. Some Detail comments: - Field Commanders moving on the operational level? No problem: You already have a „strategic phase“ in your Concept by definition. Insert a „planning phase“ before that. The FC’s communicate with the General and tell him “I’d like to go from A to B. The General evaluates all suggestions and issues final orders for the operational level game. - Generals playing the CM level, too? No problem attach a unit to them. That would allow a nice trick: If they are killed in CM, they are out. And the next one can take over. - I would not use Panzer Corps as a base. That one is too much on strategic level and does not fit to CM well. Plus, it is quite “gamey”. Something like the JT games is, what you are looking for. Bear in mind: Such a game will take ages to play. It will be very hard to keep players interested. Even when I tried to explain younger friends, that a CM PBEM game can easily take the better part of a year, I found not the least understanding...

Or can’t they sleep, because their parents laugh, having sold tons of stuff to people, who don‘t need it?

Whow! I feel dwarfed. I have a 1/35, clip together X-Wing Fighter waiting since years (because I don‘t want to ruin the beautiful blister pack of each part). And a few 54mm Napoleonic Airfix Soldiers waiting since ages. And the renovation of an ancient 1/200 wooden model of a section of the Victory waiting since the dark ages, almost. I built it in my time on University, say a shooort time ago. Ah, forgot two Heng Long tanks in the line. Sounds like it‘s time for retirement.

Refer to an earlier post of mine: “Generals“ would handle the JT games. „Field Commanders“ only need to know CM.

Yep, the John Tiller Games as base for Kohl‘s work are exactly what I mentioned in earlier posts. Check out what Kohl did. He had a very well working, GM‘ed system. Don‘t underestimate the JT Games. They are quite serious tactical simulations, just with a different scale. And their looks are not quite up to date. Sorry for my slow thinking, seems I am playing too much Panzer Corps at the moment.

Here is an interesting article about computer gaming in the German Democratic Republic back in the 80’s. Also available in English. https://www.zeit.de/digital/games/2018-11/videospiele-ddr-stasi-ueberwachung-gamer-szene-computer And if the topic does not thrill you, just sit back and watch the intro screen. Almost up to CM standards.

Well, if you can convince your wife... I probably have to settle for Dragon 1/72 scale models once more.

Good answer, but a little too late. Refer to my later post. But indeed, „getting old“ (but not obsolete. ) is probably the point. It seems, a complete dismantling and reconstruction would be a good idea. Unfortunately, I doubt those people have enough money for that kind of job. However, I just read that an overhauled replacement from Germany is already “en Route”.

Yep, as engineer, I have to fully agree. Meanwhile, I got some more info from the news. It sounds like the investigation team found numerous signs of corrosion on the fuselage and tubing of the wreck. Plus various not declared repair works. They said individually nothing significant, but all in all quite alarming and enough to question the state of the other planes. Sounds like even to find possible faults, the planes would have to be dismantled more or less completely. Oh, how we will miss them. Only in August we saw a Ju last time. We were hiking near Munich and I wondered what this strange sound is. My wife said „Why, that‘s Ju52 coming from overthere.“ And then the Ju came in very low along the Valley. Whoa, amazing..

The latest news: The Swiss authorities withdrew the permission to fly from the remaining two planes today. Apparently, they found indication of systematic structural issues in the wings of the crashed plane. Would be a big loss, if it was a permanent decision. I love to hear and see the Ju52 fly over. Even my wife meanwhile recognises the Ju just by the humm of the engines.

Just in case you guys need a x-mas present inspiration: https://mobile.twitter.com/cheddar/status/902995615675645952

Eh, sorry, I forgot to mention: You do not need to re-invent the wheel. All of your concerns have been tackled in countless board games already. I.e., the mechanics are there. The challenge is, to convert them into computer code.

See my previous post. For that you would need an umpire to set up the CM battles. BTW, I do not know if has been mentioned here already, but there was an attempt to build an operational level CMx1 game a looooong time ago. Unfortunately it was abandoned after a while. But one should find it in this Forum and it may be a source of inspiration.

Kohlenklau used an existing operational level computer game as overlay for CM. The concept in veeeery broad terms: - set up two teams of “generals” and “field commanders”, plus an umpire (aka Kohlenklau) - the generals played the operational level game - Kohlenklau would convert the battles of this game into CM QB’s, trying to capture the landscape on quickly drawn, pretty rough maps and trying to convert the operational level game units into CM forces - field commanders played the CM battles - Kohlenklau carried over the results - the generals played the next operational level turn - Life, Die, Repeat (sorry, I had to include this movie title) For practical reasons the operational level Campaigns were quite short, say 6 turns. And he limited the number of CM battles per turn. The scale of those battles could vary wildly. In my replay (we played just the CM battles and Kohl narrated the “in between’s”), we had a strange little night battle (with very little actual action. In the end, I won because I retreated off map fast enough, avoiding battle as well as I could) and a huge full scale attack on a town. Re „narrating“: In his original Campaigns, he did a very good job to narrate the operational proceedings so, that field commander, too, understood what was going on. And yes, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread: It could happen, that CM battles were “unplayable” in CM terms. I would consider that quite normal. I once played in a similar “Age of Sails” Multiplayer campaign. There we had the same phenomena: Many actions were not much fun for one side. That’s somehow the name of the game: “Don’t look for knightly feuds, but crush the opponent quick and dirty.”